Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 20:16:14 +0000
From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at tmbg.org>
Subject: Some SCALAWAGONS comments
Wasn't SCALAWAGONS discussion supposed to start yesterday? I haven't seen
anything about it so far. Anyway, this probably ranks as my least favorite
FF book. It has a few good parts, but it lacks direction, and I never cared
for the Scalawagons themselves. As other people have pointed out before,
the problem isn't so much that automobiles in Oz are advanced technology as
it is that having cars widely available lessens the chance of characters
wandering into adventures. I think it's also been pointed out that Neill
draws the Scalawagons as looking rather sinister and disturbing. I don't
really like imagining Oz as a land of highways and gas stations, anyway.
It's no wonder that later authors didn't follow up on the use of
Scalawagons.
I DID like the medicine bottles. Their desire to break limbs so that they
could repair them was amusing, and their presence allowed for some good
jokes, like the "bottleneck" of the woods, and the bottles shaking
themselves well before using. They also manage to prove useful, unlike many
of the annoying beings encountered in Oz books. The Nota-Bells were also
clever, and are the first people from Boboland we've met since Prince Bobo
himself back in RINKITINK.
Neill's "Mifkits" seem to have resulted from a confusion between the Mifkets
of JOHN DOUGH and the Scoodlers of ROAD. The Mifkits are drawn like the
JOHN DOUGH creatures, but they throw their heads like Scoodlers, and they
seem to be smaller than either race.
The map on p. 252 places Glinda's palace quite far to the north of where it
is on the TIK-TOK map. Since the palace is specifically mentioned as being
right up next to the desert in several Baum and Thompson books, I have to
wonder why Neill would have made this mistake.
I guess that's enough for now. Hopefully someone else will say something
about this book soon.
Nathan

From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at ...>
Date: Wed Aug 6, 2003 5:19 pm
Subject: SCALAWAGONS and Jenny Jump
I still haven't seen any other discussion of SCALAWAGONS. Was the starting
date delayed for some reason? I'm anxious to start talking about this book,
so I'll go ahead and post this, even if the official starting date hasn't
come yet.
I've been reading through some old posts recently, and I get the idea that
some people see Jenny Jump as not liking Ozma. On p. 277 of SCALAWAGONS,
however, Jenny says, "That's what makes you such a popular queen, Ozma. You
always think of ways to keep your people interested." This doesn't sound
like something an opponent of Ozma would say. Of course, it could certainly
be argued that Jenny doesn't want to voice her true opinions in front of
Ozma, or that this is a result of her brainwashing back in WONDER CITY. We
know that the lobotomy wasn't Neill's idea, however, and indeed, he doesn't
seem to stick to its results in SCALAWAGONS. While Jenny is generally
even-tempered in this book, she certainly gets angry at the medicine bottles
on p. 92, which would apparently have been impossible if her temper had been
totally removed. Neill's original manuscript also did not include the
ozlection, which pitted Ozma and Jenny against each other. Even in WONDER
CITY as published, however, I don't recall Jenny showing any enmity toward
Ozma. She covets Ozma's position, yes, but the two of them seem to get
along pretty well when they're together. Perhaps their relationship is
somewhat like that of the Wizard of Oz and Jinnicky: professional rivals,
but personal friends. Or perhaps Jenny just knows better than to express
her dislike for Ozma in public. I think it's likely that neither Neill nor
the WONDER CITY editor ever intended to show Jenny as an enemy of Ozma; she
was just a nuisance in WONDER CITY, and not even that in the other two Neill
books. (Incidentally, I read the three FF Neill books in the reverse order
from that in which they were written and published, so perhaps that's one
reason I tend to have a more positive opinion on Jenny than some other list
members do.)
By the time of SCALAWAGONS, Jenny seems to have been accepted as a major
Ozian celebrity. She plays a large part in this book, alongside such old
favorites as the Scarecrow, Tin Woodman, Sawhorse, and Tik-Tok. She also
seems to be responding more positively to Number Nine's crush on her, as the
Scalawagon ride back to Glinda's [pp. 148-9] and the dance scene [p. 307]
both indicate.
Any other thoughts on Jenny's character in SCALAWAGONS?
Nathan

Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 01:36:17 +0000
From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at tmbg.org>
Subject: Various SCALAWAGONS characters
Number Nine is back, but now serving as the Wizard's assistant, rather than
Jenny Jump's. We see the Wizard offer (somewhat rudely) to give Nine a job
in WONDER CITY, but he doesn't take the offer, and remains at Jenny's shop,
so we don't know when Nine got this new job. He rides a blue mule to work,
but I don't recall any clear indication as to whether he is riding it from
his father's farm in the Munchkin Country, or his uncle's house on Pudding
Place. The very first paragraph of SCALAWAGONS calls Nine "a bright
blue-faced boy." Several people have reported that giving the Munchkins
blue skin (and the inhabitants of the other quadrants the colors of their
countries) was an editorial addition to WONDER CITY, so either Neill or the
editor must have intended this reference to tie to the descriptions of Nine
as blue-skinned in the earlier book. (Along the same lines, p. 69 mentions
that "the Munchkin, Winkie, Gillikan [sic], and Quadling babies started
crying with blue, yellow, purple, and red tears," and the Foresters of Oz
have "yellow, blue, red, and purple faces," although the latter might well
not be human.) Nine isn't as lazy in this book as he was during his first
appearance, but it's quite possible that the Wizard isn't making him work as
hard as Jenny did. Speaking on Nine, on p. 102, Neill writes, "And like any
good Munchkin boy, Number Nine knew enough to wait and be surprised when the
time came." Unlike those lousy Quadlings, who always open their Christmas
presents early! <g>
The Wizard himself no longer has the disguise habit he did in WONDER CITY,
but he's still acting pretty weird, always disappearing at inopportune moments.
Neill gives Tik-Tok a large part in this book, something that hadn't really
been done since Baum's book with the clockwork man's own name in the title.
Someone (possibly J. L. Bell) had previously reported how Thompson seems to
get away from Baum's characterization of Tik-Tok, and Neill is even worse.
While Neill reports that "[e]verything about Tik-Tok was mechanical, even
his inclinations" (p. 30), the mechanical man actually seems to express more
emotions than anyone else in the book. His very first line (on p. 23) is
delivered "with joy in his voice," and and he later claims to be
"proud-of-my-re-spon-si-bil-i-ty: (p. 25). He speaks "anxiously" on p. 117,
and is exasperated by the Pops on the next page.
The Wizard's clock seems to be largely just there to allow for a lot of bad
puns (as if there weren't enough ALREADY), but he's still all right as the
story's curmudgeonly character. His scolding of Number Nine for being four
and a half units of time late at both the beginning and end of SCALAWAGONS
provides some good framing for what is overall a horribly plotted story.
The Bell-Snickle is a somewhat interesting creation, but he doesn't work all
that well as a villain. He doesn't seem to have any motivation for anything
he does beyond wanting to remain a mystery and not wanting there to be any
other mysteries. After setting a crisis in motion in Chapter 5, he totally
disappears from the plot until the very end of Chapter 16, further showing
how weakly plotted this book is. On p. 248, he suddenly gets the idea to
conquer the Emerald City, with no real reason why. It almost seems like,
during this period of Oz books, it's impossible NOT to have someone invading
the Emerald City, no matter how pathetic the invasion is. After Jenny
captures the Bell-Snickle and runs him through her turn-style, she
recognizes him as "the little flabbergasted Bell-snickle" (p. 272), despite
the fact that there doesn't seem to be any way she would have known that the
creature is called a Bell-snickle, or that he had gotten into the
flabbergas. (Perhaps the Lollies and Tik-Tok told her these things, but
there's no indication of it in the book.)
Betsy Bobbin and Trot, who were not even mentioned in WONDER CITY, are given
minor roles in SCALAWAGONS. Neill reports on p. 131 that Betsy "had been
invited to the palace for the day." Last I heard, she lived there.
As in WONDER CITY, Scraps enjoys fighting in this book, as is shown on p.
298. She doesn't seem to be quite as obsessed with it as she was in the
previous book, however. Jack Pumpkinhead's constant urging of Scraps to act
ladylike is something we really haven't seen before. Why would Jack, who
has never really seemed that close to Scraps in the past, care that much how
the Patchwork Girl acts? Since Jack and Scraps share a scalawagon and are
shown dancing together on pp. 304-5, perhaps Neill is trying to hint that
they are much closer friends than how Baum and Thompson portrayed them, if
not more. On the other hand, I don't recall the Scarecrow ever interacting
directly with Scraps, and he chooses to dance with Dorothy on p. 307. Could
Scraps have switched love interests (if you consider the Scarecrow to have
been her love interest in the first place)?
Incidentally, the dancing scene on pp. 304-5 isn't entirely consistent with
the text, despite the fact that both were Neill's work. The Soldier is
supposed to have been dancing with the Guardian of the Gates, but he's shown
here with a girl instead. There are similar-looking girls dancing with
Tik-Tok and Captain Salt. Does anyone think they're supposed to be anyone
in particular? As far as other girls in the story go, they don't really
look like Betsy, Trot, Jellia Jamb, or the Lollies.
Nathan

Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 02:15:01 +0000
From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at tmbg.org>
Subject: SCALAWAGONS and geozify
I believe I already mentioned how Neill places Glinda's palace too close to
the Emerald City on the map on p. 252. A few other points worth mentioning
about this map and its companion on p. 255 are:
The map shows the route of a "red plowhorse." I assume this is the horse
drawing the farmer's cart of yellow beets, although why a horse drawing a
cart would be referred to as a "plowhorse" is beyond me. My guess would be
that Neill either didn't remember exactly what he had written when he drew
the map, or vice versa, depending on which came first.
I believe this map is the first place where Lake Quad is given a name. It
is later referred to by that name in the text of LUCKY BUCKY.
While the text seems a bit ambiguous as to whether the Mifkits live IN the
Great Sandy Waste or just beyond it, the map seems to show them as living
outside the desert, but the part of the desert separating where they live
from Oz is very narrow. Speaking of the Mifkits' territory, the Wizard
makes clear on p. 174 that it ISN'T part of Oz, which makes Neill's
referring to the entire Nonestic region as "Oz" in LUCKY BUCKY all the
stranger.
On p. 255, Pumpkin Park, presumably the home of Jack Pumpkinhead, is shown
as being within the Emerald City territory, just north of the city proper.
Baum and Thompson were consistent in placing it in the Winkie Country,
although it seems farther away from the city in PATCHWORK GIRL than in other books.
While it's not on the map (great grandpapapapa), Ozma implies on p. 167 that
Professor Wogglebug's "College of Learning" is far away from the Emerald
City. It is quite close by in EMERALD CITY, as well as most other books in
which it appears. It does seem to take a while for the Professor to travel
from the college to the city in ROYAL BOOK, though, so maybe Neill was
basing his implications on that.
Nathan

From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at ...>
Date: Mon Aug 11, 2003 12:35 pm
Subject: extra copies, candy man can't, scalawagons
"Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at ...> wrote:
> I think it's also been pointed out that Neill draws the Scalawagons as
looking rather sinister and disturbing. I don't really like imagining Oz as
a land of highways and gas stations, anyway. It's no wonder that later
authors didn't follow up on the use of Scalawagons. <
I don't think the Scalawagons look sinister or disturbing, but I suspect
that in hindsight most of us now know more than Neill did then about the
possibilities for mass production of automobiles to produce major problems
in traffic jams and paving over of ever-increasing amounts of land that thus
becomes unavailable for housing, food-production, or recreation. (I suppose
we can assume that the Pelicans will be magically unlikely to produce any
vast amounts of pollution either from their own droppings or from
pelican-fuel-fumes.) So the whole idea of Scalawagons may seem a lot less
attractive now than it did then. The story as a whole seems very weak. It
splits into segments that have only slight narrative connections --find the
lost Scalawagons, find the Nota-Bells' origin (but they don't want to go
home, so who cares), find a socially acceptable job for the Bellsnickel,
give up on finding a socially acceptable job for the Mifkit. Jenny is sort
of the main character, but she has no real personal stake in the solutions
to any of these problems, so it's hard to care about them on her account,
either. And althouogh it's a minor point, it's tiresome the way the
characters gush over each other and their adventures -- Jenny's exclamation
about how popular Ozma is, Betsy's & Trot's comments about how riding along
in a Scalawagon in search of the Bellsnickle is the most exciting thing
they've done since coming to Oz (I would have thought that restoring Everard
to his throne and freeing the Sapphire Islanders from Quiberon were more
exciting!) and the like seem quite gushy.
We even maybe get scanted a bit on the art. There are some fine group scenes
of masses of Ozites partying, but not much in the way of scenic landscapes
or interesting exotic characters (the Bellsnickel and the Mifkit aren't much
to look at, and even the Scalawagons seem too boxy to be visually
interesting). And the endpapers are a repeat of the Emerald City spread from
"Wonder City," except for inserting a couple of little Scalawagons on the
streets.
Ruth Berman

Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 21:26:24 +0000
From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at tmbg.org>
Subject: SCALAWAGONS magic
The main magic items in the book are, of course, the scalawagons themselves.
These cars seem to be much along the same lines as the ozoplanes: made to
resemble Outside World technology, but with magical improvements. The
Wizard discusses the advantages of scalawagons over regular automobiles on
p. 24: rubber foam linings to make them "comfortable on rough roads," tiny
motors, and the ability to obey traffic rules on their own. They are also
"absolutely unbreakable." This would seem to make traffic accidents pretty
much impossible, yet on p. 294, Neill writes, "And since all the traffic was
going the same way, there were no accidents," suggesting that crashes are
possible if, for instance, someone tried to drive down the wrong side of a
one-way street. Or would a scalawagon have enough sense to avoid doing
that? The scalawagons run on peli-can motor fluid, which is apparently
different from the flabber-gas kept in a drum in the factory, which makes
the scalawagons go crazy.
The water fairies used for cleaning in the Lolly-Pop Village were a clever
idea on Neill's part.
While the stop-growing age mentioned in WONDER CITY is also brought up in
SCALAWAGONS, p. 57 says that it is ten for every child in Number Nine's
family, rather than ten for the girls and twelve for the boys. Thompson
age-if-you-want-to system is mentioned on p. 188. Jenny Jump, who was
forced against her will to grow youger, thinks this is "a grand system."
The same page has Glinda say that Dorothy is no older in SCALAWAGONS than
she was in WIZARD, which seems to be ignoring the time she spent in the
Great Outside World before coming to Oz to live in EMERALD CITY. I think we
can interpret this to say that Dorothy isn't MUCH older, rather than being
no older at all.
The Teletable from WONDER CITY is back in this book, although it now seems
to be in the Wizard's main laboratory, rather than in its room, as it was in
the previous story. Ozma makes clear on p. 229 that [o]nly lost things show
up in your teletable," while the Magic Picture can show anything. The
Picture itself seems to have sound capability on p. 253, something it has in
some books but not others. EMERALD CITY implies that the Ozites can hear
what is going on in the Picture if they listen carefully enough. In ROYAL
BOOK and GRAMPA, the Wizard uses a magic radio (which doesn't really work
like a radio) to provide sound for the Picture, and I think there's a good
chance that this device is back in use in SCALAWAGONS, even though this
isn't specified in the text.
In terms of standard Ozian magic items that seem to work differently in
SCALAWAGONS, Nick Chopper, while being transported by Magic Belt on p. 262,
finds himself "flying through the air," and is able to grab his axe on the
way.
Jenny's fairy gifts get a good deal of use in this book. It is specified on
p. 89 that Jenny's left foot/shoe is the fairy one, something I don't recall
whether WONDER CITY specified. The Scarecrow's experiment on p. 88 makes it
clear that other people cannot use Jenny's gifts. Jenny has to use her
earmuffs to hear the Nota-Bells' music on p. 96, but no one else seems to
require similar magical assistance to hear this music, so it might well have
been something Neill forgot while writing the story.
Ozma has a new (or at least previously unheard of) magic item in this
book--an emerald ring. It seems to have various powers, since she uses it
to transform the Mifkit into a winder on p. 177 (a transformation that
causes the Mifkit to itch), to get everyone's attention on p. 209, and in an
attempt to drive off the inflated Bell-Snickle on p. 197. Ozma uses her
sceptre (presumably the same as her fairy wand) to banish the Mifkit from Oz
on p. 291.
Nathan

Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 22:08:01 +0000
From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at tmbg.org>
Subject: Prejudicial attitudes in SCALAWAGONS
In general, the attitude toward Mifkits shown in this book seems to be
negative, sometimes to an extent that seems out of character. The Wizard
says that "[n]othing so hideous lives in our fair land" (p. 174), and when
the Mifkit tells Ozma, "I like myself now," she replies with, "Then you're
an exception" (p. 177), certainly something I wouldn't normally expect Ozma
to say. Despite these harsh words, both Ozma and the Wizard seem to be
somewhat sympathetic toward the Mifkit. Ozma gives it a chance to earn an
honest living in Oz, and the Wizard tells the Mifkit," The Sandy Waste is a
dreadful place. And now that you've had a taste of Oz, it will seem all the
horrider" (p. 225). When the Mifkit is overzealous at his work, however,
Ozma promptly banishes him from Oz, seeming quite angry in the process.
Afterwards, she says, "He was an amusing little savage, but there's no
place for him in Oz" (p. 291). It seems to me like there must be some job in Oz
where the Mifkit's eagerness would actually come in handy, but I suppose it
isn't necessarily Ozma's place to harbor refugees. It's more the
prejudicial attitude the Ozites have toward this creature that bothers me.
Speaking of such atttitudes, p. 146 has the Lollies and Pops admit that
they've never heard of the Wizard. This leads Jenny Jump to say, "Then I
suppose you're one of the backward tribes of Oz." While the Lollies and
Pops don't seem to mind this accusation, it doesn't strike me as a very nice
thing to say.
I'm also not too fond of the treatment of animals in SCALAWAGONS. It has
been made clear in previous discussions that many people see the Ozites as
considering animals to be a separate society within Oz, except when they
willingly become part of human society, as the Cowardly Lion and Hungry
Tiger do. Neill, however, goes even farther by showing an Animal Enclosure
where animals are chained up. Perhaps this is necessary with some of the
more dangerous animals, but the first animals mentioned as breaking their
chains on p. 128 of SCALAWAGONS are "[a] pair of purple donkeys." Perhaps
they are wild donkeys, but the animals who escape from the Enclosure act
quite civilized at the water party at Singing Brook (as opposed to the
escaped animals in WONDER CITY). With this in mind, the chains and
enclosure strike me as rather unnecessary. The Cowardly Lion and Hungry
Tiger presumably do not live in the Enclosure, although Kabumpo seems to. I
don't think Thompson's Kabumpo would have stood for being a zoo exhibit, so
perhaps this is proof against the Animal Enclosure being exactly as Neill
described it. Incidentally, p. 188 mentions three green monkeys as being
among the escaped animals, surely something that TIN WOODMAN suggests is
impossible. Did these monkeys have their hair dyed, or was more Yookoohoo
magic at work?
Nathan

From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at ...>
Date: Wed Aug 13, 2003 11:17 am
Subject: Scalawagons
"Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at ...> wrote:
> I believe this map is the first place where Lake Quad is given a name. It
is later referred to by that name in the text of LUCKY BUCKY. >
Yes. It was shown earlier (without name) on the "Tik-Tok" map, and (also
un-named) it's the scene of action for the fragment of "An Oz Book" printed
in the "Baum Bugle" a good many years back.
> On p. 255, Pumpkin Park, presumably the home of Jack Pumpkinhead, is shown
as being within the Emerald City territory, just north of the city proper.
Baum and Thompson were consistent in placing it in the Winkie Country,
although it seems farther away from the city in PATCHWORK GIRL than in other
books. >
I don't think the Park is meant to be Jack's pumpkin farm. It seems to be
intended as one of a group of alliterative flavors in Emerald City place
names -- Strawberry Street, Banana Blvd, Pudding Place, Celery Street,
Doughnut Drive, Pancake Park (all in "Wonder City," all but last two also in
"Scalawagons"), Peanut Pike & Custard Court ("Scalawagons") and Pumpkin
Place and Lemon Lane ("Lucky Bucky"). I wonder if perhaps we're meant to
assume that Pumpkin Place runs by Pumpkin Park?
Ruth Berman

Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 19:17:15 +0000
From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at tmbg.org>
Subject: Re: Re: SCALAWAGONS and Jenny Jump
Ruth:
>And althouogh it's a minor point, it's tiresome the way the
>characters gush over each other and their adventures -- Jenny's exclamation
>about how popular Ozma is, Betsy's & Trot's comments about how riding along
>in a Scalawagon in search of the Bellsnickle is the most exciting thing
>they've done since coming to Oz (I would have thought that restoring
>Everard
>to his throne and freeing the Sapphire Islanders from Quiberon were more
>exciting!) and the like seem quite gushy.
Agreed. There's sometimes a bit of this in even the best Oz stories, but it
often tends to be relegated to the beginning or the end of a book. In
addition to Betsy and Trot mentioning their earliest Oz adventures, the
cyclone that brought Dorothy to Oz is brought up a few times. I sort of get
the idea that Neill went back and did some research on these characters.
Although he must have read all of the Baum and Thompson books in order to
illustrate them, he doesn't seem to remember them all that well, and these
are actually some of the few occasions where he mentions previous
adventures.
Incidentally, the Prince/Pasha of Rash is named Evered, not Everard.
J. L. Bell:
>I believe the SCALAWAGONS discussion period has started, but I (who
>often contribute more than my share of words to these exchanges)
>haven't had time around the Munchkin Convention and other travels to
>read the book. I'll probably get to it toward the end of the month. I
>look forward to peeking in on others' comments when I can in the
>meantime.
Well, I have a few more things to say, but it looks like the discussion is
going to be rather one-sided for a while. I wouldn't be surprised to find
that the idea of rereading SCALAWAGONS isn't an especially popular idea
(although I didn't find it hard to read this last time; there was just quite
a bit about it that annoyed me, and I didn't get that much out of it). The
BCF discussions seem to have become less popular overall as of late. I'm
not sure whether it's because people are less interested in or haven't read
the current books, or there's just less participation on the list in
general.
Nathan

Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 19:55:28 +0000
From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at tmbg.org>
Subject: Thompson characters in SCALAWAGONS and other Neill books
As far as I can remember, only four Thompson characters--Sir Hokus, the
Comfortable Camel, Kabumpo, and Captain Salt--appear onstage in Neill's
books. There are pictures showing characters who might be Snufferbux
(labeled as "Sniffer") and Peg Amy (still as a wooden doll), but they don't
do anything in the stories. Joe King is mentioned, but never appears. I
also have a pet theory that the dragon with the ozbestoz box in WONDER CITY
is the same as King Cheeriobed's dragon from WISHING HORSE, but this
probably wasn't intended by Neill. I don't think these four characters are
strange choices at all; if I were going to list the top five most prominent
(not necessarily most important) characters introduced by Thompson, it might
well be these four plus Jinnicky. On the other hand, all of these
characters (as well as Ojo, who also shows up a few times in the Neill
books) live in places other than the Emerald City by the end of the Thompson
books. It's not that far-fetched that they'd be visiting, certainly, but
Neill seems to have had no interest in writing about the Thompson characters
who came to live in the capital.
Neill's characterizations of the Thompson characters are possibly even worse
than those of the Baum characters. Captain Salt is pretty consistent with
how he is in Thompson, albeit somewhat more playful. Kabumpo is pretty much
just ornamental, a function the Elegant Elephant has in the Thompson books,
to be sure, but Neill shows us very little of his personality, and has him
doing some odd things. I can't imagine Thompson's Kabumpo submitting to
being locked in an Animal Enclosure, or happily riding on top of four
scalawagons at the same time. The Comfortable Camel's entire purpose seems
to be to deliver the book's biology lesson: camels don't need to drink water
very often [p. 172]. Sir Hokus is all right, too, but Neill seems to have
totally ignored YELLOW KNIGHT. While he could easily be visiting from
Corumbia, p. 70 has him complaining about his lack of a steed (as he
frequently did in ROYAL BOOK). What happened to Stampedro, or, for that
matter, Camy, who appears later in the story? Or are we supposed to assume
that Camy came to Glinda's with the animals from the Animal Enclosure?
Speaking of Hokus on p. 70, Jenny Jump tells him he is too heavy to ride in
the Red Wagon. Sounds kind of ridiculous to me. In EMERALD CITY, the
Sawhorse pulled the wagon with nine people and two animals in it, after they
pick up Jack Pumpkinhead in Chapter 25. Two of these people--the Scarecrow
and the Tin Woodman--are the same, so are we supposed to believe that Jenny
Jump plus Sir Hokus in his armor are as heavy as Dorothy, the Wizard, Aunt
Em, Uncle Henry, Omby Amby, the Shaggy Man, Toto, Billina, and Jack put
together? I think the most likely explanation is that Neill made a mistake
(as usual), but I can't help thinking of a less pleasant possibility: Jenny
was purposely trying to stop the poor knight from coming with them.
Neill ignored a lot of Baum characters, but he did give Nick Chopper,
Tik-Tok, Aunt Em, and Uncle Henry bigger parts than Thompson generally did.
Nathan

Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 20:53:48 +0000
From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at tmbg.org>
Subject: Re: Scalawagons
Ruth:
>"Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at tmbg.org> wrote:
> > I believe this map is the first place where Lake Quad is given a name.
>It
>is later referred to by that name in the text of LUCKY BUCKY. >
>
>Yes. It was shown earlier (without name) on the "Tik-Tok" map, and (also
>un-named) it's the scene of action for the fragment of "An Oz Book" printed
>in the "Baum Bugle" a good many years back.
It's also mentioned in the text of LOST PRINCESS, again without a name.
"Lake Quad" seems to have been Neill's idea, and a fairly late idea
at that.
> > On p. 255, Pumpkin Park, presumably the home of Jack Pumpkinhead, is
>shown
>as being within the Emerald City territory, just north of the city proper.
>Baum and Thompson were consistent in placing it in the Winkie Country,
>although it seems farther away from the city in PATCHWORK GIRL than in
>other
>books. >
>
>I don't think the Park is meant to be Jack's pumpkin farm. It seems to be
>intended as one of a group of alliterative flavors in Emerald City place
>names -- Strawberry Street, Banana Blvd, Pudding Place, Celery Street,
>Doughnut Drive, Pancake Park (all in "Wonder City," all but last two also
>in
>"Scalawagons"), Peanut Pike & Custard Court ("Scalawagons") and Pumpkin
>Place and Lemon Lane ("Lucky Bucky"). I wonder if perhaps we're meant to
>assume that Pumpkin Place runs by Pumpkin Park?
While that would seem to make sense, the map accompanying Judy Pike's BUGLE
article about the Emerald City shows Pumpkin Place in the eastern part of
the city. I forget what evidence she used to place it there, though.
Pumpkin Park is identified as Jack's farm in RUNAWAY.
Nathan

From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at ...>
Date: Fri Aug 15, 2003 1:20 pm
Subject: Scalawagons
"Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at ...>
enjoyed your comments on the problems in Neill's portrayal of the Mifkit as
unintegratable and of the animals as chainable.
> Speaking of Hokus on p. 70, Jenny Jump tells him he is too heavy to ride
in the Red Wagon. Sounds kind of ridiculous to me. In EMERALD CITY, the
Sawhorse pulled the wagon with nine people and two animals in it <
Well -- maybe Jenny just doesn't know the Sawhorse's strength and is
guessing in saying that Hokus would be too heavy? But the possibility you
suggest, that she's finding an excuse to get rid of someone she doesn't
like, sounds plausible, too.
Ruth Berman

From: "jno23x" <JnoLBell at ...>
Date: Tue Aug 19, 2003 10:38 pm
Subject: Re: SCALAWAGONS magic
Nathan DeHoff wrote:
> In terms of standard Ozian magic items that seem to work differently in
> SCALAWAGONS, Nick Chopper, while being transported by Magic Belt on p. 262,
> finds himself "flying through the air," and is able to grab his axe on the
> way.
Neill might have been following a Thompsonian precedent. In YELLOW
KNIGHT, I believe, Ozma and Dorothy swoop onto the scene courtesy of
the Magic Belt, rather than appear instantaneously as Baum's books
implied they would.
J. L. Bell JnoLBell at ...

From: Alan Wise <alanmacwise at ...>
Date: Sun Aug 24, 2003 9:45 pm
Subject: Scalawagons
The funny thing about all three of John R. Neill's Oz
books is that they all tend to blur together in my
mind. Of course this isn't a phenomenon strictly
related to Neill's work, there are any number of
Thompsonian principalities that could appear in any of
her books, but at least I can recall the plots of her
books pretty readily. I read Scalawagons about a week
ago and still I'm having trouble separating its events
from those of Wonder City or Lucky Bucky, and I
haven't read those books in a dozen years or so.
Plot is much less apparent in Neill's Oz; it seems
that he valued the action and humor of his
predecessors more than just about anything else. This
isn't to say I don't like his books. Actually I enjoy
all of them quite a bit, but not in the way I usually
like an Oz book. Neill's books are more about the
atmosphere of Oz, the way it might feel to a visitor
not intimately linked to the quest but who witnesses
all the celebrities scurrying about. I like that I
can dip into a Neill book and read just a chapter or
an event, and not feel obligated to read the whole
adventure.
Neill's characters can be enjoyable. I like Jenny
Jump, Number Nine, the Nota-bels, even the Bellsnickle
has his moments, but none of them have very much to do
except talk about themselves endlessly and then rush
around. He's much less successful with Baum's and
Thompson's characters, often getting significant
details incorrect. I'm interested, however, in the
way he uses the Wizard; his disguises and constant
appearing and disappearing makes me wonder if Neill
had been influenced by Frank Morgan's multiple roles
in the MGM movie.
Alan Wise

Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 16:04:35 -0400
From: "J. L. Bell" <JnoLBell at compuserve.com>
Subject: SCALAWAGONS plot
Alan Wise wrote:
<<The funny thing about all three of John R. Neill's Oz books is that they
all tend to blur together in my mind.>>
I agree; there's much more unity between this book and WONDER CITY than I
expected. This was the first time I'd read them back to back since learning
about the editing Neill's first manuscript went through. I was expecting to
perceive a significant difference between the books' pictures of Oz as
Neill took control again, and I was surprised at how little disjunction
there was between the two books.
Whether or not Neill came up with the ideas for differently-colored Ozians,
it's even more part of the SCALAWAGONS picture of Oz than in WONDER CITY.
In the later book, Ozma worries about plants from one quadrant moving into
another [and not just the walking trees--279], and even the sky takes on
different colors [192].
Similarly, while the Ozlection discussions inserted into WONDER CITY seem
to be shaped entirely by puns, so are the episodes in SCALAWAGONS when Ozma
presides over her court. The Wizard acts strangely in WONDER CITY with his
disguises, but he's even more annoying in SCALAWAGONS with his habit of
disappearing while people are speaking to him [20, 26, 68, 163].
<<Plot is much less apparent in Neill's Oz; it seems that he valued the
action and humor of his predecessors more than just about anything else. .
. . Neill's books are more about the atmosphere of Oz, the way it might
feel to a visitor not intimately linked to the quest but who witnesses all
the celebrities scurrying about.>>
We see an ominous sign of plotlessness in Neill's note to readers: "This
book is the record of less than a week." The author promises not a single,
unified adventure, as in the story of how a particular prince gained his
throne or how Dorothy made her way back to the Emerald City again. Instead,
SCALAWAGONS is everything that happens to the Emerald City crowd in a few
days--actually, only three.
As it turns out, most of the events of SCALAWAGONS go back to the Wizard's
decision to manufacture scalawagons. The other elements in the plot mix are
the Bell-snickle's arbitrary mischief, the arrival of the Nota-bells, and
the drought that sends the forest wandering like Okies. There's the mighty
coincidence of nearly everything--the Bell-snickle, Tik-Tok, the returning
scalawagons, the Nota-bells, the rubber ghost--ending up near the Lolly-Pop
village. And some of the plot resolutions aren't well forecast; Ozma pulls
the foresters out of her hat, for instance. But, as I'll discuss in another
posting, I see a strong thematic unity in SCALAWAGONS that also connects to
Neill's other Oz books.
J. L. Bell
JnoLBell at compuserve.com

Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2003 22:09:16 -0400
From: "J. L. Bell" <JnoLBell at compuserve.com>
Subject: SCALAWAGONS and work
SCALAWAGONS' first chapter is all about Number Nine being late for his job.
Even after he's rolled up his sleeves and gone to work, the clock (whom
Jack Snow seems to have dubbed the Crank Clock; Neill doesn't use that name
consistently) keeps scolding him. In one sense this opening seems odd
because Nine doesn't turn out to be the central character of this book,
especially after the first half, and the conflict between the boy and the
clock is a minor, unresolved yammering in the background. However, that
opening scene introduces one of the book's major themes, perhaps the
central one: the value of work.
The book starts out with people laboring away diligently. First Nine
sweeps, then we learn the Wizard has invented the scalawagons at least in
part to make sure Nine isn't late for work any longer [22]. (Ironically,
the boy doesn't get the day off to see the scalawagons make their product
debut [57].)
In the next scene, Tik-Tok feels "excitement" about getting the job of
scalawagon factory manager [32], and later "exasperated" at the lazy Pops
[118]. In both cases, the clockwork man is emotionally committed to
working. (As Nathan DeHoff noted, Neill followed Thompson's lead in giving
Tik-Tok emotions; Baum's clockwork man simply existed to serve, rather than
wanting to or feeling good about it.) The scalawagons and "foolish"
peli-cans [54] are truly robotic, with no thought but to do their jobs.
Then comes a very long description of the Lollies doing their housework
[37] as the reader gazes around with increasing desperation for signs of a
plot. But finally that arrives with the Bell-snickle's sabotage of the
scalawagon factory and inventory.
A great deal of rushing around ensues, with search parties breaking apart
and re-forming in new combinations. In fact, everything seems resolved in
chapter 14, forcing Neill to spin out new problems to be resolved. As Ozma
reasserts her authority in the latter half of the book, the theme of work
comes up over and over. For instance:
* The Sawhorse mopes about the scalawagons putting him out of a job, so
Ozma appoints him a messenger [167].
* Kabumpo and Ojo seem to be in charge of the animal enclosure, not simply
idle princes [128, 216].
* The Wizard praises his ruler's values: "A good morning's work, Ozma. . . .
As for me, I've done nothing worthwhile as yet. . . . I've simply got to
accomplish something this morning" [224].
SCALAWAGONS presents all the trouble in its latter half as coming about
because of jobless wanderers, whom Ozma reforms by putting to work. (This
activity is presaged by Tik-Tok knocking sense into the Pops, turning them
from lazy bums to alert and useful citizens [118-9].) We could look for
parallels in the New Deal here, with the state seeing a need to put every
idle person to work, but there's much less sympathy for the jobless.
The Nota-bells may once have been the Puckerts of Boboland, but by this
point they call themselves "jolly tramps" [219] and Neill labels them "sky
Tramps" in his art [252]. Ozma tells them, "If you stay in the Emerald
City, you'll have to do some kind of work. Everyone here is useful."
"Work?" they reply. "It's been many centuries since we've worked" [220].
But new jobs and new uniforms make them useful citizens of the capital.
The moving trees are "drifters" to the farmer, fleeing from a drought like
Okies [245]. Again, Ozma's solution for this "band of roving, do-nothing
trees" is employment: they can "lead useful lives" by helping the foresters
with their "work of putting out forest fires started by...careless dragons"
[283].
Then there's the Bell-snickle, surely the oddest villain in the Oz books--a
giant whoopie cushion with an attitude. Jellia tells it, "Here, everyone is
expected to be something useful" [273]. Though it's the Nota-bells'
nemesis, the Bell-snickle reacts much as they did: "You mean I have to
WORK?" [277] It negotiates for more interesting work, ending up as Rubber
Stamp and Rubber Stopper.
Finally, there's the Mifkit. It gets two different assignments, as the
Wizard tries to find how it can be--what else?--"useful" [179]. First it's
Tik-Tok's winder [177--"Are the meals regular?"], then the Munchkin
farmer's milker [227--"I could milk a cow if I had one."]. (We might ask
why a man with fourteen children, only two of them known to be in the
Emerald City, needs an extra hand, but that's another story.) Eventually,
however, the Mifkit gets banished from Oz, which reveals that the book's
attitude toward work is actually conflicted.
Even though Ozma, the Wizard, and others piously proclaim that everyone in
the Emerald City must be diligent and useful, most of our favorites
actually yearn to shirk work. A monkey first voices this desire to Ozma,
"Well, don't you think we ever want a day off?" [157] But palace favorites
need no such permission. Right after they scold the Bell-snickle, Dorothy
and her girlfriends (even Jellia) choose to spend their afternoon trying on
clothes [273]. (On this page Neill also tells us, "Many stray people and
animals loitered about" the city streets.)
Ozma herself yearns to go to the Turn-Style Shop, but the Soldier with the
Green Whiskers insists, "we must attend to business first" [285]. Most of
the ensuing business consists of punishing the Mifkit, and then Ozma says,
"a new hat will do wonders for me" [291], and off she goes to shop before
her big party. After all, it's been almost twenty-four hours since she had
a day at the beach.
And what has the Mifkit done wrong to deserve its return to the Sandy
Waste? It's actually too eager a worker. First it winds Tik-Tok too much
[179], then it overpolishes the copper man [224], and finally it won't stop
milking [289]. Too much work can be a bad thing, the book seems to say--at
least for some people. Neill closes with his book's most strident voice for
getting to work, the Crank Clock, feeling compelled to boogie along with
the favorites out in the garden.
SCALAWAGONS thus elaborates on one theme I find novel and appealing in
WONDER CITY (and which is picked up in LUCKY BUCKY as well): it's not
enough simply to make it to the Emerald City. One also has to make a place
for oneself there through a useful role. Life in the capital of Oz is thus
neither leisurely nor perfect. However, for all his talk about everyone in
the Emerald City having to be useful, Neill seems to make an exception for
the girls in Ozma's palace.
J. L. Bell
JnoLBell at compuserve.com

From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at ...>
Date: Wed Sep 10, 2003 10:27 am
Subject: Re: [Nonestica] SCALAWAGONS and work
J. L. Bell:
>The moving trees are "drifters" to the farmer, fleeing from a drought like
>Okies [245]. Again, Ozma's solution for this "band of roving, do-nothing
>trees" is employment: they can "lead useful lives" by helping the foresters
>with their "work of putting out forest fires started by...careless dragons"
>[283].
Wouldn't trees be just about the LAST vehicles a firefighter would want?
--
Be your own broom,
Nathan
DinnerBell at ...

From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at ...>
Date: Wed Sep 10, 2003 12:23 pm
Subject: jobs & hollywood in oz
"J. L. Bell" <JnoLBell at ...> --
Interesting discussion of the ambivalent praise/avoidance of work in
"Scalawagons." In a way, Dick Martin was repeating this theme in his
"Ozmapolitan," giving it a happier outcome for the Mifket, and upending the
tests-to-win-a-throne plot for Tim.
Ruth Berman

From: "J. L. Bell" <JnoLBell at ...>
Date: Thu Sep 11, 2003 12:50 pm
Subject: SCALAWAGONS and work
Nathan DeHoff wrote:
<<Wouldn't trees be just about the LAST vehicles a firefighter would want?>>
A good point--riding to the scene in a parched tree could simply add more
fuel to the fire. Ozma refers only to "scouting" fires from the tops of the
trees, however. In a non-industrialized Oz, trees are presumably the
tallest things around in most of the country.
Baum and Thompson both put moving, thinking trees in their books, but Neill
seems to imply that ALL trees in Oz are conscious and capable of moving
around the ground, not just moving their limbs. That mirrors how he depicts
Ozian houses and vehicles.
J. L. Bell JnoLBell at ...

From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at ...>
Date: Thu Sep 11, 2003 2:22 pm
Subject: firefighting in oz
"Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at ...> wrote:
> Wouldn't trees be just about the LAST vehicles a firefighter would want? <
Well, you'd think so. Maybe not so much because the trees are flammable
(getting caught in a metal fire-engine by a raging fire will still kill the
unlucky fire-fighters, even if the engine itself survives), but because they
probably don't have the speed to outrun the flames well. Neill's description
of the effort involved in pulling up roots and then using the roots to
propel the trees through the soil sounds as if they must be fairly slow in
speed (maybe something similar to speed of a human wading in water?). So
they're probably not as fast as a large animal at a run, and maybe not even
as fast as a running human? Still, they'd be pretty good observation posts,
and no doubt it would be handy to be able to patrol in the observation posts
instead of traveling on your own between posts and then climbing up to get
into each new one.
Ruth Berman

From: "Brahm" <brahm at ...>
Date: Fri Sep 12, 2003 3:55 pm
Subject: Re: SCALAWAGONS and work
--- In Nonestica at yahoogroups.com, "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at t...> wrote:
> Wouldn't trees be just about the LAST vehicles a firefighter would want?
> --
i always found a secret bit of personal joy that Baum created living
sentient trees (in modern literature) a half century before Tolkien.
of course ive also always found the fact that Baum calls these 'the
policemen of the forest'and Tolkien calls his the 'guardians of the
forest' - to be down right... suspicious.
i also never doubted in my twisted mind that the fighting trees
could uproot and move if needed (they were sadly only given a few
sentences of an appearance, quickly defeated, and never explored or
developed in any depth) -
i also always felt that Baum CLEARLY separated these
sentient 'moving' trees from other non-living 'gift' bearing trees -
lunch pail, book, etc... which would of course make Neil's account
of all OZIAN trees being of the living thinking type - rub me the
wrong way... from what ive read/learned in the last few posts here
about his general ozian depictions anyway.
The fab four were quite shocked by the fact these fighting trees
could move at all - completely surprised - had never seen anything
like it before (and keep in mind two forest EXPERTS were among the
party) and even specifically said that these Anomalies must have
been "given this wonderful power" over other non thinking/moving
trees.

From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at ...>
Date: Sun Sep 14, 2003 2:29 pm
Subject: Re: [Nonestica] Re: SCALAWAGONS and trees
Brahm:
>i always found a secret bit of personal joy that Baum created living
>sentient trees (in modern literature) a half century before Tolkien.
I believe ANNOTATED WIZARD mentions that there were sentient trees in
Dante's DIVINE COMEDY, but that isn't exactly modern literature.
>of course ive also always found the fact that Baum calls these 'the
>policemen of the forest'and Tolkien calls his the 'guardians of the
>forest' - to be down right... suspicious.
Wouldn't you want the trees who guard the forest to know what's going on?
>i also never doubted in my twisted mind that the fighting trees
>could uproot and move if needed (they were sadly only given a few
>sentences of an appearance, quickly defeated, and never explored or
>developed in any depth) -
In Onyx Madden's MYSTERIOUS CHRONICLES, the fighting trees are able to
communicate, but not with regular spoken language. They apparently couldn't
move around. In addition to SCALAWAGONS, there are walking and talking
trees called Twigs in KABUMPO, and there's a mention of Twigs living on
South Mountain (presumably not the same place they were encountered in
KABUMPO) in OJO. Personally, I think there are several different varieties
of sentient trees, some being able to talk, others to move voluntarily to
varying degrees (some just their limbs, and others their roots as well), and
some to do both.
>i also always felt that Baum CLEARLY separated these
>sentient 'moving' trees from other non-living 'gift' bearing trees -
>lunch pail, book, etc... which would of course make Neil's account
>of all OZIAN trees being of the living thinking type - rub me the
>wrong way... from what ive read/learned in the last few posts here
>about his general ozian depictions anyway.
In fairness to Neill, the sentient trees we meet in SCALAWAGONS don't seem
to bear any unusual fruits. There's a mention that "moving forests are
common in Gillikan [sic] land," but no indication that ALL forests there can
move around. So I'd say that fits in with my theory.
>The fab four were quite shocked by the fact these fighting trees
>could move at all
I don't remember the Beatles ever encountering fighting trees. Was that in
YELLOW SUBMARINE? <g>
Nathan
DinnerBell at ...

From: Alan Wise <alanmacwise at ...>
Date: Tue Sep 16, 2003 5:10 pm
Subject: Re: [Nonestica] SCALAWAGONS and work
--- "J. L. Bell" <JnoLBell at ...> wrote:
> Ozma tells them, "If you stay in the Emerald
> City, you'll have to do some kind of work. Everyone
> here is useful."
> "Work?" they reply. "It's been many centuries since
> we've worked" [220].
> But new jobs and new uniforms make them useful
> citizens of the capital.
Part of what I like about Neill's contribution to Oz
is that we finally get to spend some time in the
Emerald City. Baum always used E. City as a kind of
oasis after a long journey and was more interested in
describing the rooms wearly travelers were granted
once reaching the capital. (I'm thinking specifically
of the Shagy Man in ROAD, but there are any number of
others.)
For Thompson, the most important part of the Emerald
City seemed to be the "back yard" of the palace where
games took place; at one point she even adds a back
porch and swing.
Neill makes the Emerald City a real metropolis with
all the bustling inhabitants hurrying off to their
jobs. He, more than any of the other Royal
Historians, seems to have enjoyed the hustle that
comes from living in the city. I wonder, too, how
much he may have been influenced by the MGM film--the
inhabitants there are all pretty interesting and seem
to have specific jobs. Plus his Wizard acts a bit
like frank Morgan in the film: disappearing and
reappearing wearing odd costumes.
Alan Wise

From: "John W. Kennedy" <jwkenned at ...>
Date: Tue Sep 16, 2003 7:08 pm
Subject: Re: [Nonestica] Re: SCALAWAGONS and trees
Nathan Mulac DeHoff wrote:
> I believe ANNOTATED WIZARD mentions that there were sentient trees in
> Dante's DIVINE COMEDY, but that isn't exactly modern literature.
The Wood of the Suicides in Hell; they who rejected their own bodies get
what they asked for....
--
John W. Kennedy
"You can, if you wish, class all science-fiction
together; but it is about as perceptive as classing the
works of Ballantyne, Conrad and W. W. Jacobs together
as the 'sea-story' and then criticizing _that_."
-- C. S. Lewis. "An Experiment in Criticism"

From: "Brahm" <brahm at ...>
Date: Tue Sep 16, 2003 7:10 pm
Subject: Re: SCALAWAGONS and trees
--- In Nonestica at yahoogroups.com, "Nathan Mulac DeHoff"
<DinnerBell at t...> wrote:
> Brahm:
> >i always found a secret bit of personal joy that Baum created living
> >sentient trees (in modern literature) a half century before Tolkien.
>
> I believe ANNOTATED WIZARD mentions that there were sentient trees in
> Dante's DIVINE COMEDY, but that isn't exactly modern literature.
hence my paren'd clarity.
>
> >of course ive also always found the fact that Baum calls these 'the
> >policemen of the forest'and Tolkien calls his the 'guardians of the
> >forest' - to be down right... suspicious.
>
> Wouldn't you want the trees who guard the forest to know what's going on?
i meant that the entire concept of Tolkien's ENT's appear to
be 'borrowed' from Baum... or at the very least should not be given
a high score in ORIGINALITY!
;)
Personally, I think there are several different varieties
> of sentient trees, some being able to talk, others to move voluntarily to
> varying degrees (some just their limbs, and others their roots as well), and
> some to do both.
i can live with this - its much simpler in Baum's OZ in my opinions
and theories of course - your a tree - your (A) animated and
sentient - or (B) your not.
>> In fairness to Neill, the sentient trees we meet in SCALAWAGONS don't seem
> to bear any unusual fruits. There's a mention that "moving forests are
> common in Gillikan [sic] land," but no indication that ALL forests there can
> move around.
someone in an earilier post said
"but Neill seems to imply that ALL trees in Oz are conscious and
capable of moving around the ground, not just moving their limbs.
That mirrors how he depicts Ozian houses and vehicles."
if you are saying this is incorrect and not implied - then i feel
better i suppose... but in the end i personally wouldnt know, care
or lose much sleep over it since its not Baum... but i appreciate
the info none-the-less. Thanks.
> >The fab four were quite shocked by the fact these fighting trees
> >could move at all
>
> I don't remember the Beatles ever encountering fighting trees. Was that in
> YELLOW SUBMARINE? <g>
No.
Actually it was in "The Beatles" cartoon produced by King Features
Syndicate for ABC in th emid 60's.
You may recall that after defeating the sentient trees a glorious
battle erupts with the Wicked Pete Best, after escaping, the fab
four discover that the Blue Munchkins are really the Blue Meanies
and then they burst into a techno version of "Komm, Gib Mir Deine
Hand!"
~Brahm

From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at ...>
Date: Wed Sep 17, 2003 11:50 am
Subject: Re: [Nonestica] Digest Number 948
Alan Wise <alanmacwise at ...> wrote:
> Part of what I like about Neill's contribution to Oz is that we finally
get to spend some time in the Emerald City. ... Neill makes the Emerald
City a real metropolis with all the bustling inhabitants hurrying off to
their jobs. He, more than any of the other Royal Historians, seems to have
enjoyed the hustle that comes from living in the city. <
Yes, he gives the impression of enjoying city life -- his interest in the
physical layout of the streets and parks, etc., also fits in with his
interest in the kinds of things the people d .
> I wonder, too, how much he may have been influenced by the MGM film--the
inhabitants there are all pretty interesting and seem to have specific jobs.
<
Maybe, although they still stay pretty much in the background (no individual
names, and more in the way of choral than individual action). The
resemblance between the MGM & Neill use of disguises for the Wizard that you
mention seems stronger.
Nathan DeHoff and "John W. Kennedy" mentioned the sentient trees in
Dante's DIVINE COMEDY. Myths of people turned into trees (such as Daphne
into Apollo's laurel) and beings who are the spirits of trees (such as
dryads) are found in many cultures. In Norse myth, the first man and woman
were Asch and Embla (ash and elm). Less common are ancient stories where the
trees are directly intelligent -- the story of the war of the trees over
which tree should be their king found in Judges is an example. In more
modern times, George MacDonald used the Ashman and Alderwoman as menacing
characters in "Phantastes," and I seem to recall some short stories by
Walter de la Mare about sentient trees, but not in enough detail to give
plots or titles. Arthur Rackham's illustrations of trees with mischievous or
malicious faces (rarely -- if ever? -- demanded by the texts being
illustrated) must have been a considerable influence on modern writers such
as Tolkien.
Ruth Berman

From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at ...>
Date: Wed Sep 17, 2003 12:44 pm
Subject: Re: [Nonestica] Re: SCALAWAGONS and trees
Brahm:
>--- In Nonestica at yahoogroups.com, "Nathan Mulac DeHoff"
><DinnerBell at t...> wrote:
> > Brahm:
> > >of course ive also always found the fact that Baum calls
>these 'the
> > >policemen of the forest'and Tolkien calls his the 'guardians of
>the
> > >forest' - to be down right... suspicious.
> >
> > Wouldn't you want the trees who guard the forest to know what's
>going on?
>
>
>
>i meant that the entire concept of Tolkien's ENT's appear to
>be 'borrowed' from Baum... or at the very least should not be given
>a high score in ORIGINALITY!
I think the two authors could have come up with the concepts independently.
We've discussed this before, and I don't recall there being any indication
that Tolkien had read Baum. Neither Baum nor Tolkien invented the idea of
sentient trees.
>Personally, I think there are several different varieties
> > of sentient trees, some being able to talk, others to move
>voluntarily to
> > varying degrees (some just their limbs, and others their roots as
>well), and
> > some to do both.
>
>
>i can live with this - its much simpler in Baum's OZ in my opinions
>and theories of course - your a tree - your (A) animated and
>sentient - or (B) your not.
I tend to see being able to uproot and move around as requiring more magic
than simply moving branches.
> >> In fairness to Neill, the sentient trees we meet in SCALAWAGONS
>don't seem
> > to bear any unusual fruits. There's a mention that "moving
>forests are
> > common in Gillikan [sic] land," but no indication that ALL forests
>there can
> > move around.
>
>
>someone in an earilier post said
>
>"but Neill seems to imply that ALL trees in Oz are conscious and
>capable of moving around the ground, not just moving their limbs.
>That mirrors how he depicts Ozian houses and vehicles."
>
>if you are saying this is incorrect and not implied - then i feel
>better i suppose...
It's somewhat ambiguous, really. Neill seems to allow just about everything
to act of its own accord, so maybe he thinks of all Ozian trees as sentient.
The passage in SCALAWAGONS suggests to me that they can't (or at least
don't) all move around, though. I've always seen Neill's attitude towards
sentient objects in Oz as contrary to both the spirit and letter of Baum and
Thompson, but I suppose it's possible that there was just a lot of extra
magic in the air during the Neill years.
Nathan
DinnerBell at ...

From: "Brahm" <brahm at ...>
Date: Sun Sep 21, 2003 7:21 pm
Subject: Fantasy and Mythology
--- In Nonestica at yahoogroups.com, "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at t...> wrote:
> In Norse myth, the first man and woman
> were Asch and Embla (ash and elm).
The ash and the elm became the father and mother of the whole human
race living on Midgard...
But long before Odin ventured to Midgard (with peers) to breath life
into the first humans - the entire basis of Norse Mythology and the
norse view of the cosmos was based on Yggdrasil, the cosmic tree of
life.
The three roots of the tree of life extended to three different
wells (realms) - Urd(Wryd), Mimir (Frost Giants!), and Helvelgamar
(where a serpent eats away at the tree). There is a ton of cool
stuff going on with this tree (just ask me about Veldrolnir!) - and
it was used to explain and represent almost every aspect of the
norse cosmology.
of course none of this has to do with sentient trees.
as i said before - Baum gets the credit for creating the first EVIL
trees attacking adventurers in a 'MODERN' fantasy story.
and of course we all know that in the end... everything fantasy
literature orientated originated from ancient mythlogy - even
christianity!

From: "J. L. Bell" <JnoLBell at ...>
Date: Fri Sep 26, 2003 11:34 pm
Subject: SCALAWAGONS and trees
Nathan DeHoff wrote:
<<Neill seems to allow just about everything to act of its own accord, so
maybe he thinks of all Ozian trees as sentient. The passage in SCALAWAGONS
suggests to me that they can't (or at least don't) all move around,
though.>>
I'm not sure which passage in SCALAWAGONS you're referring to. I don't see
anything in the description about the forest starting to move [231-3] that
implies these trees are in any way different from other Ozian trees, except
that they're thirsty. When writing of the Fighting Trees in WIZARD and the
Fiddlestick Forest in COWARDLY LION (?), or other moving plants as in
PATCHWORK GIRL, earlier Oz authors always said there was something special
about that moving flora. Neill's only hint of anything unusual about this
forest is that it comes from what he labels "Wild Lands" on his map
[255]--but, of course, forests often define wilderness.
A later passage says and shows that moving forests are a common problem for
farmers in the northern part of Oz:
They did not find a plowed field until
daybreak. It was just the kind of field they
wanted, but when they tried to settle there,
a farmer appeared and shouted at them to move
on. Moving forests are common in Gillikan land.
"I no sooner clear my land of trees,
when another horde comes," shouted the farmer.
He shook his fist at the forest. "Get along,
you drifters!"
The forest had no course but to go on. . . . [245]
This farmer treats the trees just as earlier farmers in the series treat a
flock of crows or a hungry rabbit: he shoos them away. He doesn't act as if
something extraordinary has happened. And while we may take his "no sooner"
complaint as exaggerated, the passage still tells us that moving forests
are only to be expected in that area.
Ozma puts these trees to work for her firefighters with the understanding
that they'll continue to move: "Each will be responsible for one tree, lead
it to water whenever it is thirsty, and hold a monthly reunion" [283]. Even
though she's just appointed a rubber stopper to keep seeds from blowing
into the wrong quadrants [279], she doesn't put a stop to this wandering
woods.
There are certainly other trees and flora in SCALAWAGONS that stay put [57,
80, 144, 147]. But Neill doesn't tell us they need water, and he does offer
that explanation of why this forest moves. That implies that if any of
those other plants get into drought conditions, they too could move on.
I don't think that picture of Ozian flora is consistent with the rest of
the Reilly & Lee series, or particularly interesting and attractive. I can
choose to regard it as Neill's misinterpretation of why a forest suddenly
showed up outside the northern Emerald City gates during this busy week,
and the Gillikin farmer's complaint as apocryphal. Perhaps the forest's
animation was actually the result of Jenny Jump's bag of fairy magic, or
the Bell-snickle, or some other anomaly. But for understanding what Neill
had in mind, he seems clearly to have decided that in Oz any forests can
walk around if they really, really want to.
J. L. Bell JnoLBell at ...

From: "J. L. Bell" <JnoLBell at ...>
Date: Fri Sep 26, 2003 11:34 pm
Subject: SCALAWAGONS art
My copy of SCALAWAGONS is a deaccessioned library copy. Can anyone tells me
what art appears on the endpapers? Also, is there a "This Book Belongs to"
page?
The art in SCALAWAGONS is particularly interesting in that it's the first
Oz book in which we can be sure that John R. Neill wrote (nearly) every
word to go with his pictures, or the other way around. So we can actually
interpret the text through the art, and vice versa. At times they fit
together closely, as on page 250, when the art shows the cross-eyed house
[248] and bird [250] exactly. And the maps (the first since, I believe,
LOST PRINCESS) show the author-artist plotting his moves.
Oddly enough, however, there are contradictions between text and art. On
page 27, Neill shows Tik-Tok misspelling his name: "Tic Toc." As in WONDER
CITY, the rendering of Tik-Tok's speech also shifts. Perhaps we see the
copy editor's hand at work here. Either that, or Neill corrected his
typescript but didn't bother to correct his art.
In addition, the drawing on page 91 shows Nick Chopper fending off a
medicine bottle. According to the text, however, the Tin Woodman is totally
paralyzed at this point. Not only does the text not describe this picture,
it says it couldn't have happened. The simplest explanation, I suppose, is
that Neill found the image of a bottle emptying its contents on a
completely frozen tin man too unexpressive.
On page 108 Neill tells us the Ambassa-door is "quite an ordinary-looking
door," and that it "bent down." But on page 107, he shows us quite an
unusual-looking door, and it's swung aside. I suppose we could decide that
the ordinary-looking side of the door has swung away from us, but it
appears that Neill the artist didn't want to stick with Neill the writer's
idea.
A similar oddity appears on page 243 when, "Leaning forward, Dorothy patted
her scalawagon between its eyes." It sounds like she's leaning down to pat
the vehicle's front between its headlight eyes, yet Neill's pictures (and
other descriptions) put the scalawagons' eyes on top of their roofs, with
little space in between them.
On page 308, the text tells us the Soldier with the Green Whiskers and
Guardian of the Gates are playing marbles at the city gate. But the picture
on shows the Soldier dancing with a girl in the garden.
All those contradictions make me think Neill revised his thinking as he
went along, but never went back to revise his manuscript (which would have
been easier than revising his artwork).
The picture of Nine and the clock on page 135 apparently illustrates a
scene earlier or later since those characters are far away from their usual
posts in that chapter.
Looking for that drawing's original spot made me note that the
chapter-opening pages aren't exactly regular. The last has unusually little
space for art and an extra line, while others drop a line to avoid a
widow/orphan on the next page. Neill was apparently being less strict about
design in his own book than he had often been for Thompson's.
The book's opening pages mostly show Ozians interacting with
technology--the scalawagons, but also the teletable and (at the start of
chapter 1) the clock. That hints at the upcoming book's theme.
Carrot Top Mountain appears to have the same geography as Mount Munch and
Flathead Mountain, with impassably steep sides and a flat top. According to
the picture on page 51, with the domed scalawagon factory on top, it's the
most phallic of these mountains. How does one get to the top? "There was no
path" [42], and even the rubber Bell-snickle struggles up. I suppose that's
why the Wizard chose it for his factory. It's a tribute to Smith & Tinker
that Tik-Tok survives the "fearfully long drop" to the ground [48].
In the double-page spread on 58-59, there's a man just on the right side of
the gutter, seated next to Number Nine. Does anyone recognize him? All the
other figures at Ozma's table are familiar celebrities. For that matter,
who's the very distinctive profile to the right of the Wizard on page 150?
And who are the high-heeled gents with crowns on 154? We know "Jo-King"
isn't there [153].
On page 102, we can see Kabumpo talking with a camel and other animals,
presumably part of his job at the animal enclosure [128]. Both elephant and
camel reappear on 150 and 154. Neill later tells is the Comfortable Camel
is in the Emerald City [235], like other characters Thompson had moved out.
Is Dick Tater on 206 supposed to be reminiscent of Mussolini? Since the
artist created the character, that's plausible, but the episode doesn't
seem to be saying anything about the fascists that the US would go to war
against by the end of the year. This whole episode is mostly a vehicle for
puns, like Utensia.
The picture of silly oversized bonnets on page 299 makes me think that
Neill got some of his ideas through doodling. The Nota-bells may owe one of
their names to a pun, but their flying whiskers are made for art [221,
223]. Similarly, the Bell-snickle's name is a pun, but the actual creature
can barely be described in words, simply shown on the paper. There are also
several visual set-pieces in Neill's narration, starting with the long
description of the Lollies' house-cleaning; they seem to show an
imagination geared to visuals at work, not one geared to plot.
J. L. Bell JnoLBell at ...

From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at ...>
Date: Sun Sep 28, 2003 10:56 pm
Subject: Re: [Nonestica] SCALAWAGONS and trees
J. L. Bell:
>A later passage says and shows that moving forests are a common problem for
>farmers in the northern part of Oz:
> They did not find a plowed field until
> daybreak. It was just the kind of field they
> wanted, but when they tried to settle there,
> a farmer appeared and shouted at them to move
> on. Moving forests are common in Gillikan land.
See, when I first read that, I figured that it meant not all forests in the
Gillikin Country could move around, or Neill would have said so, rather than
simply saying they were "common." Considering Neill's track record,
however, it's probably more likely that he thought all forests there COULD
move, but not all of them wanted to.
--
Making something out of nothing 'til there's no more nothing left,
Nathan
DinnerBell at ...

From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at ...>
Date: Tue Sep 30, 2003 11:36 am
Subject: scalawagons art, oz in college
"J. L. Bell" <JnoLBell at ...> wrote:
> My copy of SCALAWAGONS is a deaccessioned library copy. Can anyone tells
me what art appears on the endpapers? Also, is there a "This Book Belongs
to" page? >
The endpapers reprinted the doublepage spread from "Wonder City" of the
Emerald City streetscene, with a couple of Scalawagons inserted on the
streets. The "This Book Belongs to" page shows the Mifkit balancing a book
on his head. Enjoyed your comments on the feedback (and sometimes lack of
feedback) Neill had between his text and art.
> the drawing on page 91 shows Nick Chopper fending off a medicine bottle.
According to the text, however, the Tin Woodman is totally paralyzed at this
point. Not only does the text not describe this picture, it says it couldn't
have happened. <
> [an oddity] on page 243 when, "Leaning forward, Dorothy patted her
scalawagon between its eyes." It sounds like she's leaning down to pat the
vehicle's front between its headlight eyes, yet Neill's pictures (and other
descriptions) put the scalawagons' eyes on top of their roofs, with little
space in between them. >
If she were outside and in front of the scalawagon, I suppose she could lean
forward and reach up. But if I'm reading the text correctly, at this point
she is riding inside the scalawagon, and although she might possibly lean
out the door while it's still moving and stretches high enough to to get in
a pat between the eyes, it sounds like a dangerous sort of stunt.
> In the double-page spread on 58-59, there's a man just on the right side
of the gutter, seated next to Number Nine. Does anyone recognize him? All
the other figures at Ozma's table are familiar celebrities. For that matter,
who's the very distinctive profile to the right of the Wizard on page 150?
And who are the high-heeled gents with crowns on 154? We know "Jo-King"
isn't there [153]. >
Beats me. Unless other people have possible identities for them, maybe Neill
was filling in space with unidentified faces he liked. (Maybe caricaturing
friends?)
> Bell-snickle's name is a pun, but the actual creature can barely be
described in words, simply shown on the paper.
Judy Pike, in an article on Neill in the "Bugle" (included in one of the
"Best of" reprints), said that according to an article on folklore she'd run
across, Bellsnickle is the name of Santa Claus's servant (the guy who comes
with switches to beat bad children with) in Pennsylvania Dutch folklore.
Ruth Berman

Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 14:49:35 -0400
From: "J. L. Bell" <JnoLBell at compuserve.com>
Subject: SCALAWAGONS aging and timing
On page 57 of SCALAWAGONS, Neill says that Nine's siblings "had all reached
the stop-growing age of ten." As Nathan DeHoff noted, in WONDER CITY the
boys' stop-growing age is said to be twelve, though of course by the time
one is twelve one has reached the age of ten.
Harder to reconcile through word games is what happened to baby Fourteen
after WONDER CITY. Page 138 of SCALAWAGONS says that the events in that
book occurred only "last year." Surely that baby didn't grow nine
years in
one!
J. L. Bell JnoLBell at compuserve.com

Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 14:49:34 -0400
From: "J. L. Bell" <JnoLBell at compuserve.com>
Subject: SCALAWAGONS mechanics
As a manufacturing executive, the Wizard leaves a lot to be desired. When
the Wizard vanishes on page 26, he hasn't explained to Tik-Tok the danger
of flabber-gas. Presumably it's part of the manufacturing process, since
otherwise its only function in the factory except as a plot device.
The Wizard also doesn't tell Tik-Tok that the assembly line might back up,
which it does to the sound of "crumpling fenders" [28]. The Wizard doesn't
consider what might happen when Tik-Tok runs down, which he's bound to do
eventually. Since no one else knows about the scalawagon factory and Carrot
Top Mountain appears too steep to climb, presumably the Wizard himself
expects to come back and wind Tik-Tok up.
While the clock is evidently self-winding [147], Tik-Tok has always had to
rely on help. His keyholes are under his arms and in the middle of his
back, inaccessible to him. Though Baum didn't set out any laws of robotics,
Smith & Tinker have apparently made sure that Tik-Tok can't go off on his
own--eventually, he'll wind down and need help to get restarted. By giving
the clockwork man a Mifkit winder, however, Ozma not only makes him
unlikely to ever wind down, but also under the influence of a creature she
doesn't trust--a curious choice.
J. L. Bell JnoLBell at compuserve.com

Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 22:39:51 -0400
From: "J. L. Bell" <JnoLBell at compuserve.com>
Subject: SCALAWAGON oddities
As has been noted, Neill tends to refer to small groups of like-made people
in SCALAWAGONS as "tribes." Adding to those some that don't get the label,
there are quite a lot of odd little groups. But adding to their oddity are
Neill's contradictory remarks or loose ends.
THE LOLLIES AND POPS
The Lollies and Pops are apparently all made of candy: mint, butterscotch,
chocolate, lemon, grape, and licorice [35, 39, 120]. Neill says, "Flavor is
their middle name [121]," which seems to mean "Mint-Flavor Lolly" and the
like.
The Lollies and Pops can dissolve and melt [37, 39], so their choice to
live beside the water and apparently near the Deadly Desert is a little
odd. They can be eaten, arousing the appetite of both Jenny and the Hungry
Tiger [120, 153]. Yet they make "stew" [120] and other warm food
[39].
The Lollies and Pops have never heard of the Wizard or Ozma--making them
"one of the backward tribes of Oz," according to Jenny [146]. Perhaps,
however, the Pops' foolishness combined with the Lollies' youth (they're
"no older than five years" [35]) is a better explanation of that ignorance.
Certainly they don't seem isolated from the rest of Oz in other
ways--throughout the whole book people keep crashing in on their village.
On page 41 somebody yells, "BELL-SNICKLE!" to alarm the Lollies--but who?
MIFKITS
As many people have noted, Neill's Mifkits combine features of the Mifkets
in JOHN DOUGH and RINKITINK (general body shape) and the Scoodlers in ROAD
(the habit of removing and throwing their heads). Neill says the captured
Mifkit has "wooden teeth" [173], perhaps another reference to the
Scoodlers, who were based on wooden toys.
Both Mifkets and Scoodlers are hostile and violent, like these Mifkits as a
bunch [even among themselves--142]. But the individual we see most proves
quite willing to work hard for Ozians. Neill nevertheless calls that one a
"little brown monster" [173].
Both Number Nine and Ozma have heard about the Mifkits before [118, 175].
In fact, they seem to have been a problem for Oz at one point; Ozma says,
"We haven't been bothered with them in years" [176].
NOTA-BELLS
There are 88 Nota-bells [96], which matches the number of keys on a piano,
the common musical instrument with the widest range. (Jenny has learned how
to play one, it turns out [98].) However, one of the little men is a "dumb
bell" who can't ring [100], and therefore in music must represent not a
note but a rest. And then there are the rest.
The Nota-bells are ignorant of girls [98, 190], and think people who swim
are "water spirits" [190]. Yet they claim to inspire human composers
[98-100], some of whom had been female and some of whom swam.
On page 192, Nine says he never saw the Nota-bells through the Wizard's
teletable. But he actually saw them back on page 106.
Also on page 192, the Nota-bells complain about their "great enemy, who
shadows us," which turns out to be the Bell-snickle. Of course, Neill
hasn't told us that about the Bell-snickle before, nor has the creature
shown any interest in chasing the Nota-bells.
The Nota-bells pull out another new oddity on page 286, when they suddenly
pull out their sweet tooths (teeth?) and insist on sugar--a craving they
never mentioned when "they were on a red road outside the village of the
Lolly-Pops" [113].
MISCELLANY
In the Lollies' singing brook, there seem to be two distinct types of
magical creatures. The "boy kelpies" are mischievous [38, 187], acrobatic
[134], and play with Number Nine [184]. Neill says they have "horse-like
bodies" [38], but he depicts them as humanoids with fins [134]. They also
seem to prefer the space behind the water fall.
The "water fairies," in contrast, all appear to be female, though that's
based on Neill's drawing on page 36 rather than his words. They live in the
brook rather than in the waterfall.
Finally, there are presumably many untold stories in Ozma's "great,
ancient-looking" Book of Magic Tribes. Even the section titled "Lost or
Strayed Bands from Boboland" lists, as Ozma says, "quite a few" missing
peoples: Crinks, Chuckerts, Elfeons, Jollericks, Spunkers, Gadixies, and
Giffers, as well as the Puckerts/Nota-bells.
J. L. Bell JnoLBell at compuserve.com

From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at ...>
Date: Thu Oct 9, 2003 11:54 am
Subject: Re: [Nonestica] SCALAWAGON oddities
J. L. Bell:
>The Lollies and Pops are apparently all made of candy: mint, butterscotch,
>chocolate, lemon, grape, and licorice [35, 39, 120]. Neill says, "Flavor is
>their middle name [121]," which seems to mean "Mint-Flavor Lolly" and the
>like.
Considering Neill's love of puns, it's quite possible that he really did
intend "Flavor" to be the Lollies' literal middle name. I hadn't really
thought of it that way before.
>On page 41 somebody yells, "BELL-SNICKLE!" to alarm the Lollies--but who?
I figured it was the Bell-Snickle himself, trying to make the Lollies afraid
of him.
>There are 88 Nota-bells [96], which matches the number of keys on a piano,
>the common musical instrument with the widest range. (Jenny has learned how
>to play one, it turns out [98].) However, one of the little men is a "dumb
>bell" who can't ring [100], and therefore in music must represent not a
>note but a rest.
I wonder which of the notes on a piano is left out.
>The Nota-bells are ignorant of girls [98, 190], and think people who swim
>are "water spirits" [190]. Yet they claim to inspire human composers
>[98-100], some of whom had been female and some of whom swam.
Isn't there some passage in SANTA CLAUS about the Fairies being unable to
become friendly with their human charges? Perhaps it is similar for the
Nota-Bells; they inspire composers, but never really get to know them.
>On page 192, Nine says he never saw the Nota-bells through the Wizard's
>teletable. But he actually saw them back on page 106.
At the time, though, he thought it was Jenny who was lost. I suppose he
never thought to re-evaluate the situation in light of what Jenny told him
about NOT being lost.
>Also on page 192, the Nota-bells complain about their "great enemy, who
>shadows us," which turns out to be the Bell-snickle. Of course, Neill
>hasn't told us that about the Bell-snickle before, nor has the creature
>shown any interest in chasing the Nota-bells.
Perhaps the Nota-Bells are mistaking the Bell-Snickle for some earlier enemy
(there could be an interesting story there, if the original enemy followed
them to the Emerald City), or they just assume that anything big that casts
a shadow in their vicinity must be an enemy.
>In the Lollies' singing brook, there seem to be two distinct types of
>magical creatures. The "boy kelpies" are mischievous [38, 187], acrobatic
>[134], and play with Number Nine [184]. Neill says they have "horse-like
>bodies" [38], but he depicts them as humanoids with fins [134].
Aren't kelpies traditionally shape-shifters? I seem to recall reading that
they take the form of horses to lure equestrians to their doom in the water.
--
Making something of nothing 'til there's no more nothing left,
Nathan
DinnerBell at ...

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 10:56:37 -0500
From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at tc.umn.edu>
Subject: scalawagon tribes
"J. L. Bell" <JnoLBell at compuserve.com> wrote:
> In the Lollies' singing brook, there seem to be two distinct types of
magical creatures. The "boy kelpies" are mischievous [38, 187], acrobatic
[134], and play with Number Nine [184]. Neill says they have "horse-like
bodies" [38], but he depicts them as humanoids with fins [134]. They also
seem to prefer the space behind the water fall. >
The term comes from Scottish folklore, where kelpies are a kind of
shape-shifting spirit that often take on animal forms to play tricks on
passersby, and especially the shape of a horse or cow. A favorite trick is
to let the victim climb on for a free ride and then run into the nearest
water to drown the rider. The "Webster's Collegiate" to hand says it is
perhaps from Scottish Gaelic cailpeach, colpach, meaning heifer or colt. So
Neill is following the folklore in the description -- and in drawing them as
humanoid water-spirits, he may have been figuring that that might be their
"true" form when they're not shapeshifting.
> Finally, there are presumably many untold stories in Ozma's "great,
ancient-looking" Book of Magic Tribes. Even the section titled "Lost or
Strayed Bands from Boboland" lists, as Ozma says, "quite a few" missing
peoples: Crinks, Chuckerts, Elfeons, Jollericks, Spunkers, Gadixies, and
Giffers, as well as the Puckerts/Nota-bells. >
Hmm, lessee.... Crinks might be bent-over beings. Chuckerts and Puckerts
might be related beings, the first more lumpish, and the second more
shriveled. Elfeons might be elfin, but still smaller, Jollericks and
Spunkers cheerful and brave, Gadixies might be roaming nixies or pixies or
drinking cups, and the Giffers might be unusually generous. They might all
be interested to learn that their king Bobo was restored to his human shape
(although apparently without any special interest in being restored to his
throne) in "Rinkitink." (Depending on how far back they'd been lost, they
might also be interested to learn that their king Bobo had needed
restoration in the first place.)
"Scalawagons" was the first time since "Rinktink" that Boboland got a
mention. The map of Oz has a lot of place-names that Baum didn't use until
Oz books published later, but I think Boboland, Pingaree, and the Kingdom of
Rinkitink, all from "Rinkitink" were the only names on the Borderlands map
that were making their first appearance there. Presumably all of them came
from the original, non-Oz, and unpublished version of "Rinkitink." I wonder
if that original version might have said anything more about Boboland than
the rather bare mention it wound up getting as published. Neill's list of
lost tribes is the only time anything much in the way of details about
Boboland got published. Evidently Neill used the term "tribes" for these
groups specifically because they were Lost Tribes.
Ruth Berman

From: Dave Hardenbrook <DaveH47 at ...>
Date: Fri Oct 10, 2003 4:40 am
Subject: Kelpies
Kelpies are also described by J.K. Rowling in her "textbook",
_Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them_. Her description agrees
with what Ruth and Nathan have said, with the addition that she
asserts that the Loch Ness Monster is a Kelpie...
Gyma: "I was at Hogwarts during the mid to late 1970's and often
strolled out to Loch Ness, feeling homesick for my prehistoric
friends in Op -- That's why Nessie kept assuming the form of a
plesiosaur during that period."
--
Dave

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 11:43:57 -0400
From: "J. L. Bell" <JnoLBell at compuserve.com>
Subject: SCALAWAGONS oddities
Nathan DeHoff wrote:
<<>On page 41 somebody yells, "BELL-SNICKLE!" to alarm the Lollies--but
who?
I figured it was the Bell-Snickle himself, trying to make the Lollies
afraid of him.>>
With so few other characters around, he's a logical candidate. (Otherwise,
it might be the frog, water fairies, or kelpies, but they're some distance
away.) My problem with assuming the Bell-snickle yelled out his own name is
that at that moment his motivation is not to scare but to remain a mystery,
and naming himself would dispel a lot of that mystery.
<<>On page 192, Nine says he never saw the Nota-bells through the Wizard's
>teletable. But he actually saw them back on page 106.
At the time, though, he thought it was Jenny who was lost. I suppose he
never thought to re-evaluate the situation in light of what Jenny told him
about NOT being lost.>>
Nine was indeed looking for Jenny, but the teletable showed him the
Puckerts before Jenny entered the picture, and it undeniably did show them.
A bigger mystery might be why the teletable had never before shown the
Nota-bells or the several other lost tribes. Then again, the teletable
never seems to show the Valley of Lost Things in Merryland, which would be
an obvious place for it to point all the time.
A fair amount of my own Oz writing, I realize, is influenced by the late
Thompson/Neill image of the Wizard in his tower lab, surrounded by big
magical machines and at least one assistant. (Yes, he invented things and
had a workshop as far back in Baum's books, but the late 1930s/early 1940s
books show those activities on a bigger, more industrial scale.) However,
in my conception a lot of the Wizard's new magic is still in development,
and doesn't work as well as he'd like. That allows for more interesting
plotting, and also provides an explanation for oddities like this.
Ruth Berman wrote of the Puckerts:
<<They might all be interested to learn that their king Bobo was restored
to his human shape (although apparently without any special interest in
being restored to his throne) in "Rinkitink." (Depending on how far back
they'd been lost, they might also be interested to learn that their king
Bobo had needed restoration in the first place.)>>
Another possibility is that Boboland is a republic with many of its
citizens eager to become "civilized," thus making the region less
hospitable to princes (hence Bobo's willingness to live elsewhere) and
immortals (causing the Puckerts and other somewhat magical tribes to
migrate). That possibility is largely inspired by a wish to make Boboland
unlike other Nonestic-region countries, not just another magical monarchy,
and thus throwing out new stories instead of the same old restoration
dramas.
Thanks for the various comments on the "boy kelpies." Their first
appearance on page 38 speaks of their "small, horse-like bodies" and their
mischief, so Neill undoubtedly had the traditional creature as his
starting-point. But these kelpies don't seem to be the tempters of
legend--unless they have more malevolent reasons for teaching Number Nine
"how to slide down the waterfall" [184].
J. L. Bell JnoLBell at compuserve.com

From: "John W. Kennedy" <jwkenned at ...>
Date: Fri Oct 10, 2003 8:23 pm
Subject: Re: [Nonestica] SCALAWAGONS oddities
J. L. Bell wrote:
> My problem with assuming the Bell-snickle yelled out his own name is
> that at that moment his motivation is not to scare but to remain a mystery,
> and naming himself would dispel a lot of that mystery.
Would it? I mean, in order to have a mystery, there must first be
something that is not a mystery to anchor it. As C. S. Lewis observes,
in context, even "boojum" is not wholly meaningless. But if there were
no "Hunting of the Snark", then there would be no "boojum".
--
John W. Kennedy
"You can, if you wish, class all science-fiction
together; but it is about as perceptive as classing the
works of Ballantyne, Conrad and W. W. Jacobs together
as the 'sea-story' and then criticizing _that_."
-- C. S. Lewis. "An Experiment in Criticism"

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 22:36:25 -0400
From: "J. L. Bell" <JnoLBell at compuserve.com>
Subject: SCALAWAGONS loops
Rereading SCALAWAGONS for the first time in years, I was struck by how
loopy it is. By that I don't mean the surreal elements of any Neill book,
but how every so often the plot loops over the same ground to produce a
feeling of deja vu.
On page 55, Neill describes how one Mifkit climbs into a runaway
scalawagon. On page 141, he describes the same thing, but never mentions
the first Mifkit-in-scalawagon. In between, Jenny and Nine spot the
scalawagons but decide not to rescue them yet, after all [113].
The Scarecrow runs so fast as to harm his passengers in chapter 7 and
chapter 14. (And then he wonders why people prefer to ride scalawagons.)
Mysterious clouds approach Ozma's picnic on page 186 (this cloud turns out
to be the Nota-bells), page 195 (the Bell-snickle), and page 198 (the
Bell-snickle again).
Jenny flies off on hunts twice, the Mifkit is ordered to take a job twice,
the Nota-bells demand two sets of uniforms. And how many times do
characters come upon the village of Lollies and Pops?
I suspect that Neill had certain ideas about where he wanted this story to
go (e.g., "one of the scalawagons carries back a Mifkit"), but didn't
carefully plan out how the pieces would fit together. He could definitely
have pulled the threads of the plot tighter, and snipped off some loose
ends.
J. L. Bell
JnoLBell at compuserve.com

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 23:19:39 -0400
From: "J. L. Bell" <JnoLBell at compuserve.com>
Subject: SCALAWAGONS mystery
John W. Kennedy wrote:
<<> My problem with assuming the Bell-snickle yelled out his own name is
> that at that moment his motivation is not to scare but to remain a mystery,
> and naming himself would dispel a lot of that mystery.
Would it? I mean, in order to have a mystery, there must first be
something that is not a mystery to anchor it.>>
And in this case the mystery is "a large bluish-green object, flat as a
buckwheat pancake, and rolling along on its edge like a cartwheel. Bells
were fastened to its ears, and as it rolled, the bells tinkled" [41]. In
other words, the physical presence and effects of the Bell-snickle would
provide a mystery even without his name. (In contrast, no one has testified
to seeing a boojum, for obvious reasons.)
On the following page, the Bell-snickle mutters to himself, "They almost
found me out! But they didn't." The Lollies would probably have remained
unaware of anything more than a tinkling bell if someone hadn't screamed,
"BELL-SNICKLE!" So if the Bell-snickle himself yelled that, he has only
himself to blame for nearly losing his mysteriousness.
Of course, the Bell-snickle may be self-defeating and conflicted. He'd be
far from the first or last person with those qualities. Indeed, he may be
stuck in an unresolvable paradox by wishing to be recognized as a
mystery--i.e., both known and unknown.
Neill describes him as made of rubber, flat and circular, like a "great
bladder" and capable of making "a mighty blast...like thunder" [247]. At
the risk of spoiling his mysterious qualities, I'll repeat my
identification of him as an overgrown whoopie cushion.
On the question of why the Nota-bells think the Bell-snickle is their enemy
shadowing him, we might note that the Bell-snickle probably hears a ringing
in his ears from the bells he wears. The Nota-bells take responsibility for
tunes ringing in other people's ears, so perhaps they're shadowing him--or
there's mutual resentment.
J. L. Bell
JnoLBell at compuserve.com

Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 13:39:12 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <JnoLBell at compuserve.com>
Subject: SCALAWAGONS Scarecrow and Tin Woodman
The Tin Woodman and Scarecrow have a hard time in SCALAWAGONS. The tin man
finds a new way to get frozen stiff: not because of water rusting his
joints but because of the rush of wind drying them out. Jenny even thinks
rain might do him some good [78].
As for the Scarecrow, Neill shows a new side of him: "His brains were
sagging all to one side of his head, where his mathematical genius was. The
rest of his head was empty" [159].
Jenny treats these old favorites rather cavalierly, I have to say. She
assumes the Sawhorse will rescue them and bring them back to Glinda's
palace [95], but when she arrives there and they're still absent she says
nothing [153]. In fact, she laughs when they show up all bent out of shape
[159].
J. L. Bell
JnoLBell at compuserve.com

Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 13:39:10 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <JnoLBell at compuserve.com>
Subject: SCALAWAGONS relic of original WONDER CITY
On page 71 of SCALAWAGONS, Jenny Jump says of her magical implements, "My
fairy godfather provided me with them long ago." That seems to be a
throwback to Neill's original WONDER CITY manuscript in which, as I recall,
Jenny meets her leprechaun benefactor considerably before she comes to Oz.
In the published WONDER CITY, Jenny receives those gifts only about a year
before the events in SCALAWAGONS, according to page 138.
J. L. Bell JnoLBell at compuserve.com

From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at ...>
Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 10:14 am
Subject: Neill's kelpies
"Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at ...> wrote on Neill's kelpies that
they have "the bodies of horses, as do kelpies in legend," and I commented
that I thought they were human-shaped throughout.
I checked the text, and see with interest that Neill doesn't actually say
what his "kelpies" look like -- except that he calls them "boys," which is a
phrasing that implies that he's thinking of them as human-shaped. He doesn't
say what the "water-fairies" in the Singing Brook/Fairy Pool are shaped
like, either, or how you tell the difference between them and kelpies. He
has two illos, though, one of a bucketful of water fairies being carried off
to help with the cleaning, and one of boy-water-spirits playing on the
surface of the water. It would be barely possible that both of these are
illos of water fairies (the ones in the bucket are tiny and more a part of
their water, but quite possibly water-spirits could change their appearance
at will), but it much more likely that the boy-shaped-water-spirits are
meant to be the kelpies. Judging by the illos, the differences between them
are size and wateriness (the water fairies in the bucket look more like
waves coming to life than the human-shaped boys in their finned clothes
playing on the surface of the water).
Ruth Berman

From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at ...>
Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 12:16 am
Subject: RE: [Nonestica] Neill's kelpies
Ruth:
>"Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at ...> wrote on Neill's kelpies that
>they have "the bodies of horses, as do kelpies in legend," and I commented
>that I thought they were human-shaped throughout.
>
>I checked the text, and see with interest that Neill doesn't actually say
>what his "kelpies" look like -- except that he calls them "boys," which is
>a
>phrasing that implies that he's thinking of them as human-shaped.
It took me a while to find this reference, but I KNEW I remembered seeing
it. From p. 38 of SCALAWAGONS:
"Then came mischievous laughter, and two boy kelpies slid through the brook
and scampered behind the waterfall. Their small, horse-like bodies were
well out of sight when the bull-frog came up."
I believe this is the book's only reference to the kelpies being at all
equine in appearance, but it's there.
--
Making something of nothing 'til there's no more nothing left,
Nathan
DinnerBell at ...

From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at ...>
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 10:43 am
Subject: dragons and water-spirits
"Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at ...> wrote:
> It took me a while to find this reference [to Neill's kelpies as
horse-shaped], but I KNEW I remembered seeing it. From p. 38 of SCALAWAGONS:
"Then came mischievous laughter, and two boy kelpies slid through the brook
and scampered behind the waterfall. Their small, horse-like bodies were
well out of sight when the bull-frog came up."
I believe this is the book's only reference to the kelpies being at all
equine in appearance, but it's there. <
You're right -- I forgot to check that brief earlier appearance. (Your
memory is so reliable!) I wonder in that case if Neill meant the boy
water-spirits he drew playing on the water-surface to be the kelpies, but
forgot to mention their shape-changing abilities, or if he forgot that he'd
described them in the earlier scene as looking horse-like, or if he meant
them to be some other kind of water-spirit entirely but forgot to mention
what. I suppose it's barely possible that they're meant to be some of the
"water fairies," although they don't look like them as shown in the earlier
illo.
Ruth Berman

Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:52:51 -0500
From: "Scott Hutchins" <Scott.Hutchins at cix.csi.cuny.edu>
Subject: [Regalia] The Scalawagons of Oz
I read this Monday. I still think Neill is extrmely good at jumping into
action, but overall not a good writer. The mystery of the Bell-Snickle is
a non-mystery, especially since Jenny recognizes him as a Bell Snickle.
This book probably has the biggest plot hole in the entire series--"THE
WIZARD HAD VANISHED" we are told in capital letters, but when Jenny Jump
returns, he's back without there having been any recognition that he was gone.
Ozma comes across as very snotty and superficial in this book, partly an effect
of Neill being convinced that the colors of Oz intrude so much into the
landscape and bodies of the "Ozzians" (didn't Baum use
"Ozites"?).
The very idea of the book is easy to deconstruct as Neill having apparently
overexposed himself to the General Motors Pavilion at the 1939 World's Fair in
Queens, and apparently forgot that Oz just doesn't have enough roads for
everybody to be driving around in a car, or any ability to see the subtext in
Baum's description of the Rak in _Tik-Tok of Oz_, which he may have completely
forgotten.
After an interesting debut, Jenny seems remarkably bland in this outing, with
little to distinguish her from the other girls. IIRC the age regression
was art of the original manuscript of Wonder City while the Wizard's
personality alteration was not, but at any rate it still seems to be in effect
here. Now she seems like a good girl of the 1950s (and no, I don't mean
the 1940s, even though that's when it was written--she seems much more in
keeping with '50s mores than '40s).
Portions of the book sort of drag, even though it's a fast read. It's
perhaps appropriate that in as mechanically oriented a book as this that a
talking clock take the place of a talking animal as a major character, but I
found him rather annoying because he's so repetitive and predictable.
Neill's work is certainly readable, but it's definitely a low ebb in the
series. At least _Lucky Bucky_ is still available so I hopefully I won't
have to spend as much to get it as I did this, which was too much. I'm
completely broke at the moment after expenses, so it won't be as soon as I
like, and there's too much else I have to read.
Scott

Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 21:08:11 -0500
From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <xornom at hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: [Regalia] The Scalawagons of Oz
Scott Hutchins:
>This book probably has the biggest plot hole in the entire series--"THE
>WIZARD HAD VANISHED" we are told in capital letters, but when Jenny Jump
>returns, he's back without there having been any recognition that he was
>gone.
That's true. He's vanished as of p. 68, but is back on p. 152, when Jenny
comes back with the scalawagons. He's gone again on p. 163, but the reason
is given this time--he's making more scalawagons. The purpose of his
earlier disappearing act seems to be so he's not around for anyone to ask
him what scalawagons are. He could have gone to any number of places for
any number of reasons, but it's true that Neill doesn't tell us. And he
presumably hasn't told anyone what scalawagons are by the time that Jenny
returns with the cars. Maybe he made sure not to return to Glinda's until
he was sure the cars were safe.
>Ozma comes across as very snotty and superficial in this book, partly an
>effect of Neill being convinced that the colors of Oz intrude so much into
>the landscape and bodies of the "Ozzians" (didn't Baum use "Ozites"?).
I think so, but I seem to recall "Ozians" also showing up in at least one
pre-Neill book. Maybe it was in something by Thompson.
>The very idea of the book is easy to deconstruct as Neill having apparently
>overexposed himself to the General Motors Pavilion at the 1939 World's Fair
>in Queens, and apparently forgot that Oz just doesn't have enough roads for
>everybody to be driving around in a car, or any ability to see the subtext
>in Baum's description of the Rak in _Tik-Tok of Oz_, which he may have
>completely forgotten.
I've seen the theory that the Rak was named by reversing the word "car," and
it's an interesting one, but I don't know that it really holds up to close
scrutiny. Cars can't fly or swim (although scalawagons can apparently glide
on water, and there's one in LUCKY BUCKY that flies through the air to the
Nonestic Ocean), and car exhaust doesn't smell like salt and paper.
Besides, was the word "car" often used to refer to an automobile in Baum's
time? I think another theory I've read, that the Rak was named after the
ARABIAN NIGHTS roc (an animal that also exists in the Nonestic world,
according to Captain Salt in his own book), is more likely. Still, it's
true that Baum and Thompson avoided introducing automobiles to Oz, and I
don't think it was a very good idea on Neill's part.
>After an interesting debut, Jenny seems remarkably bland in this outing,
>with little to distinguish her from the other girls. IIRC the age
>regression was art of the original manuscript of Wonder City while the
>Wizard's personality alteration was not, but at any rate it still seems to
>be in effect here.
I believe the original manuscript had Jenny learning to be nicer and more
docile on her own.
--
I'll still be right where you left me, if you manage to forget me,
Nathan
DinnerBell at tmbg.org